you can't claim that the familial relationship creates an opportunity to get away with murder.

would it be right not to send her to jail because she killed her only child, whether or not she is sorry? she sure can't do that again.

just spay her and send on her merry way?

First of all it wasnt murder, it was negligans, she didnt set up that bucket for the kid to drown in.

Again my point remains valid, yes it is right not to send her to jail, could you please explain why prison is more suitable then getting her a functioning life?

Prison is not a more suitable option than the ideal 'getting her a functioning life' option, and I sure do wish -- I'm serious, here -- that I lived in a fantasy world where it was realistic to expect that we can and should deal with child negligence cases like these through solely rehabilitative programs.

However, your idealistic contention is working against the operating legal principle that modern societies have involving criminal negligence, recklessness, or willful blindness. If an individual in our society acts without the care and caution of the standard of a reasonable person, and death results from this recklessness, you have criminally negligent manslaughter.

As a side issue, which prompts clarification: this sort of legal liability actually does serve a social utility, which I'm sure you can guess: it dissuades people from being criminally negligent by disallowing somebody from escaping mens rea just because there was no malicious intent.

A mother gets sauced while responsible for being the primary caregiver of a child. As a result of the drunkenness and other factors of negligence, the child in her care dies. Legal codes follow a punitive and quintessentially utilitarian treatment of such circumstances, and said mother has committed a criminal act.

Fris is right, there are many mothers who don't care about their children. fjafjan, you assume all mothers love and want to care and provide for their children and it just isn't true.

Being a parent is an important responsibility. You become responsible for another person's life. You are responsible.

Now you don't have to accept this responsibility. From abortion to adoption to fostering, there are options you can choose if you do not want to accept the responsibility of becoming a parent. If you chose to deliver your child and keep and raise them, then you are accepting the responsibility for that child. It is your responsibility to do whatever you can to keep that child safe and healthy so that it can reach an age where it can be responsible for itself.

This girl chose to keep her child, she chose responsibility for it.
She chose to go drinking even though she was (it seems) the only one responsible for her child.
She chose to take the risk that while drunk she might harm the child or the child might come to harm because she was drunk.

And it did.

Basically, she gambled with her child's life and lost it.

Her choices actively ended with the death of her child. The death of a person.

Just because that person was her own child does not mean it is less of a death or has less meaning. She killed a person. Not by accident and not by design, but that person is still dead and it was through her own negligence. Her own chosen negligence.

And while I can sympathize with her loss and her pain, that does not excuse her in any way from the act OR make her less responsible.

The judge will decide how much of a sentence she will serve. She will, no doubt receive counseling while serving her sentence. She will be sleeping in a place where she is warm/cool, is served regular meals, has access to books, and probably will even receive some job training if she chooses.

She will not be sent to a maximum security prison. You are assuming all jails and prisons are created equal. They are not. Even in the worst ones here, you can argue that the inmates have more luxuries then many homeless people. Sure they lack the freedom to leave... but how many homeless people really have the freedom to just leave their situation behind them? How many really get regular meals and showers, have access to libraries and job training and counseling?

It could be argued that she will have a better chance being put in proson then she will if she stays on the streets.

She is young and (we'll assume) tramatized by her child's death. Left on the streets, she still is homeless with nowhere to go, no money, no counseling, no job training.
What she will have is a huge amount of guilt and sorrow. She's already near rock-bottom, depression doesn't make you more likely to seek help, but usually less likely. Left on the streets, she is more likely to get back into drinking to forget and really just spiral downwards from there. Hell, if she feels bad enough, she may even take her own life.

And DO NOT tell me that she should be released back to the streets but be given special training and counseling and money and all just because of what she went through. Killing her child, even without intent, DOES NOT make her more worthy of these things then any of the other homeless people. Especially the other homeless people who are actually trying to fight to improve their situations.

Remember, she made her choices._________________"Her kisses left something to be desired -- the rest of her. "

i go to be dismolared and come back to amazing arguments made by people who aren't fhgjeuahkjh. this makes me happy that there are other sane people who find value in the justice system._________________